If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is just not true. The reason this is often the case is because all the intelligence is outsourced to the internet. People all use identical build orders and most maps always play exactly the same way. Further one doesn't have time for macro when one has only 30 minutes in a match.

If we set up RTS games to require much more intellectual processing in game we could make macro much more important than micro, as it should be.

The obsession with balance causes games to be incredibly simplified in the number and variety of units and they try to add the complexity in by saying well you need to micro your actives. But even then what you need to do to micro actives is intellectually trivial its all about motor control and apm.

This was a DECISION that was made. Back in the day we had excuses about how UIs were shit and we didn't have the cycles for AI or w/e but these days for purely financial reasons the major game developers focused on excessive balance for multiplayer and on graphics because your average person can't really tell the difference between a complex game and a trivial one like SC2. Unless they are copying build orders they are laughably bad at the game.

Burden of knowledge is a bad financial decision. Macro gameplay is a bad financial decision. Singleplayer focus for RTS is a bad financial decision.

The only place you are going to get macro and/or strategy and/or intellectually focused gameplay is from someone going the route of Tarn, or from some sort of open source project. Maybe if we are lucky we will get some nice STRATEGY games from kickstarters.

You show me an RTS without micro and I'll show you a game you are playing wrong.

The problem is games like Starcraft 2 are all about artificial problems requiring player's attention, for example you can't even set production in your buildings on auto. That's a made-up obstacle and has nothing to do with strategy. Second problem is that your units are helpless when youre not babysitting them.

Example how to do this right: in Men of War Assault Squad, which I'm playing a lot, when you have an AT-soldier hidden in the grass and a tank comes in range, that soldier (logically) takes the shot unless you specifically tell him to hold fire. You don't need to babysit him just to make him perform his role. Moreover, MoW has this micro-thing done right because it allows you to take direct WSAD control over any unit you wish, usually you'd want to use it to control mission-critical assets like heavy tanks. Then again MoWAS is a proper and innovative real-time strategy game, not an overhyped game that halted it's development at Dune level and year 1993.

In short, the point is that in SC2 without constant micro and your attention your units and structures don't work.

This is why I actually enjoy watching Company of Heroes matches: there's enough of a random element in the game that build orders only go so far. There is no one agreed upon way to start and adaptation is the key. Nothing quite like seeing the Wehrmacht pull off a victory after having been pounded by US forces for 30mins, through having managed to keep map control and gain veterency on tier 2 or having tech'ed to tier 4.

Sins has a bit of micro. The fleet formation options usually does not work as well as you would like due to people just focus your capital.

I guess I havent not watch enough to watch a formation fleet attack and what they focus. Do your frigates go after fight carrier? Bombers on heavies?

Oh, by the way now that you mentioned Sins, is that game still worth getting if you're looking for a somewhat-competitive RTS? I know the original game was released like 5 years ago (so I guess I missed the train there) but the expandalone is half-year old. Is multiplayer still healthy?

I'm just sort of looking for a multiplayer RTS to play while waiting for Call to Arms.

The problem is games like Starcraft 2 are all about artificial problems requiring player's attention, for example you can't even set production in your buildings on auto. That's a made-up obstacle and has nothing to do with strategy. Second problem is that your units are helpless when youre not babysitting them.

The problem with this argument is that if you follow it to the letter you end up with a game that plays itself.

I mean why do I have to tell my workers to build things? Should't I just pick a build from a list and it be all automated? And why do I have to manually put melee units in front of ranged ones? Isn't it obvious it should be this way? etc.

Some moron made up a new meaning but doesn't understand English and so use an inappropriate word. But they act like it invalidates the old more widely recognized meaning, which it doesn't. That person used macro in its traditional form, you know microeconomics vs macroeconomics so why would only macro refer to economics? Then some dumbass tried to drop the team liquid meaning even the the aforementioned person had used macro properly.

The problem with this argument is that if you follow it to the letter you end up with a game that plays itself.

I mean why do I have to tell my workers to build things? Should't I just pick a build from a list and it be all automated? And why do I have to manually put melee units in front of ranged ones? Isn't it obvious it should be this way? etc.

Well that all depends on how you define the player's role. Don't you think its weird that you play all 3 races like a hivemind when only the zerg are actually a hivemind? They even have a unit called the hivemind. I honestly don't see a problem with having a lot of the game play itself, assuming the player has some purpose. For instance in a simulation the agents act like agents and the player just deals with large scale decisions. In a game about strategy it would make sense for the player to play a general or higher and the lower ranks would play as if they were real life agents, which is what the person you quoted is asking for.

And hey, why not just build from a list in starcraft thats half the gameplay anyways. But in a game about strategy and not boring micromanagement, the build order should never be simple enough that you can just use a cookie cutter build order. Of course games like Starcraft have one, they are so ridiculously simplified and all the work is just apm on the unit level.

You can tell me all you want that hot keying to each barracks to make sure you always have one and only one unit building is macro management but I'm not buying and nobody with any sense will either.

At least WBC3 had the sense to let me set a recruitment order per building and set it to repeat. God that game was dozens of times better than Blizzard RTSes just for that reason.

The problem is games like Starcraft 2 are all about artificial problems requiring player's attention

Games in general are artificial problems requiring the player's attention. The question you should be asking is what purpose a given mechanic serves. Complaining that an RTS isn't wholly about strategy seems a bit nonsensical to me: that's kind of the point of making an RTS instead of a TBS in the first place. Even then, there's a wide range of skill mixes you can fit within the genre, reducing diversity wouldn't be an improvement imo.

Oh, by the way now that you mentioned Sins, is that game still worth getting if you're looking for a somewhat-competitive RTS? I know the original game was released like 5 years ago (so I guess I missed the train there) but the expandalone is half-year old. Is multiplayer still healthy?

I can't speak for sure, but I don't think the Sins mp community has ever been very big. The forums are certainly pretty quiet. And my own feeling is that the balance is way off in the new expandalone. From what I can tell, 2 of the 6 factions are regularly "banned" from multiplayer matches cause they're too powerful. It now feels like it's a game about managing your Titans, rather than building up fleets of starships.

I'm a big settlers(2&7) fan, not exactly the home of micro. But you can always be doing more stuff.

Maybe a little rts with an effective or literal input cap could be made (imagine a total war game where your orders are actually relayed by a runner) truth is, as it stands most actual "strategy" games are turn based. Freedom from monkey hands!

So a nut from the Starcraft community defined a word as he believes it related to Starcraft. I'm just gonna go and quote myself here:

Originally Posted by Nalano

Goddamnit, man, words have definitions. You can't just define a word any fucking way you want.

Now, as for

Originally Posted by Mohorovicic

The problem with this argument is that if you follow it to the letter you end up with a game that plays itself.

If you're concerned that, relieved from the requirement of having to telling your units to fire back or managing a production queue, you have nothing to do, I think that shows exactly how shallow your actions strategy-wise really are in your real-time strategy game.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

So a nut from the Starcraft community defined a word as he believes it related to Starcraft.

Except Team Liquid is the most respected western Starcraft community, and so happens that Starcraft is the poster child of the genre, especially as it relates to esport. Yeah, some nut.

So I'm just gonna go and quote myself here:

Originally Posted by Mohorovicic

Sometimes words have several different meanings. Crazy huh?

If you're concerned that, relieved from the requirement of having to telling your units to fire back or managing a production queue, you have nothing to do, I think that shows exactly how shallow your actions strategy-wise really are in your real-time strategy game.

And hey, why not just build from a list in starcraft thats half the gameplay anyways. But in a game about strategy and not boring micromanagement, the build order should never be simple enough that you can just use a cookie cutter build order. Of course games like Starcraft have one, they are so ridiculously simplified and all the work is just apm on the unit level.

I made it to the top league in SC2 during the beta and again after launch, on random race, not memorizing build orders.

As for APM, I was probably somewhere around 30-40 on average. The execution in SC2 isn't challenging to anyone who plays action games and knows what a hotkey is, at least until you start pushing into the territory of 5-10% best players in the world. People complaining that SC is just about clicking fast are never even close to the point where they would need to do so. Their lack of success is due to not understanding the game and the fundamentals of strategy, and/or inability to direct their focus to where it's needed at a given time.

The idea that build orders are "lists" that can be executed mechanically well into the game, and memorizing such lists somehow translates to winning, is beginner-level thinking as well. A rigid build order that extends minutes into the game is unusable due to its fragility. The player must adapt to the opponent and the map, the flow of the match, and play to their own strengths while covering their weaknesses. Real BOs are loose frameworks to move within, to mix and match, and to abandon when appropriate.

The use of known-good build orders is not a crutch, nor does it indicate that the game is light on strategy. A weak player choosing to use a proven solid build order improves all aspects of their game faster, including their strategy. The alternative is reinventing the wheel. Worse, they could get "creative" which is like a blind man throwing paint at a canvas and hoping for the result to be a realistic portrait. Legit creativity in strategy requires you to be able to identify what is actually strong, and a weak, inconsistent player cannot do that. It gets particularly comical when a weak player keeps coming up with weird strategies, keeps losing with them, and yet thinks they are "good at strategy". If only the game wasn't all about APM, they'd surely beat everyone... :-D

Ive been waiting for a great RTS game to be launched for a while also, i miss those days :( but have been following Planetary annihilation and cant wait till this gets made so i can get my greasy little mitts on a copy http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...generation-rts

Would limited movements per player limit the spam fest? This way not distracting from the realtime part (not making it turn based) but also keeping a persons click speed out of the equation?

Making the game less responsive would be incredibly frustrating. Would be horrible in Starcraft. Maybe you can make some other game out of it, though. It'd probably have to be built around these restrictions so they don't feel contrived.